hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 0.90.3 soon?
Date Wed, 04 May 2011 04:21:36 GMT
After discussion below, I wonder if 0.92.0RC would come out before 0.90.4
I hope that's the case - we're looking forward to coprocessor which wouldn't
be in 0.90.x anyway.

Regards

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> IMO, HBASE-3777 is a critical fix -- it even addresses a regression
> introduced in 0.90.0 -- but its too risky putting it out now in a
> release from branch, at least just yet.  It was only committed a day
> or so ago (Thanks Karthick and Ted for the hard work getting it in).
> I think it needs a bit of bake-in.  We should be rolling a 0.92.0RC
> pretty soon.  It'll get some testing then.
>
> We can not risk a point release that is less stable than previous
> versions; if we err, the cost in terms of support and community trust
> is just too high.
>
> Meantime, any chance of a backport of hbase-3777 Ted?
>
> Good stuff,
> St.Ack
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The possibility of HBASE-3777 creating bigger trouble than without is
> low,
> > in my opinion.
> > Maybe we should conduct a poll in user mailing list and count the votes.
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> > Actually these two actions are related.
> >> > I can imagine the disappointment among hbase users if HBASE-3777
> weren't
> >> > included in 0.90.3
> >>
> >> I can also imagine the disappointment if we release a 0.90.3 that
> >> contains more bugs than it fixes, it goes both ways. Moreover,
> >> HBASE-3777 wasn't targeted and still isn't targeted for 0.90.3, so I
> >> don't see how even if someone paid attention to the jira they would
> >> expect to see it in 0.90.3
> >>
> >> I'd like to state that I'm not trying to discredit the work that was
> >> done in that Jira, it was a perfect example of open source
> >> collaboration, but I'm rather trying to point out that it's a big
> >> change and that the bigger the change the better the chances are that
> >> there will be bugs lurking in it. You could easily list big patches
> >> that were committed to point releases in the past and I would agree
> >> with you that this is something we've done, but I can also recall a
> >> number of those changes that introduced more bugs and even made some
> >> releases unusable (like 0.20.4). Let's try to learn from our errors.
> >>
> >> Finally, even if it's not in 0.90.3, the fact that a backport be made
> >> available means that people can patch it in themselves or that other
> >> distros can decide to include it (like in the next CDH3 update). And
> >> finally we could do a 0.90.4 with it.
> >>
> >> J-D
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message